Back
1993 JLJ 99
K.K. Verma, J.
Ashok Sharma v. State of M.P.
Misc Cr. Case No. 1642 of 1991, against the order of Shri Vikas Jain, 4th
Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, passed in
Bail Application No. 963 of 1991,. Decided on 24. 9.1991.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 56, 57 and 167 (1) -- person arrested -- need not be forwarded or produced in the Court of Magistrate n provisions relating to production or for warding the accused do not prohibit the production or forwarding on holidays.
Section 56 speaks of the taking or sending of a person arrested before a Magistrate but not necessarily in the Court of a Magistrate. Section 57 and sub-section (1) of section 167, read together, envisage the forwarding of an accused to the nearest Magistrate and to the Magistrate having jurisdiction but not necessarily in the Court of the Magistrates in question. What is more, section 57 and sub-section (1) of section 167 do not say that the production of the accused arrested before the Magistrate need not be done on a day on which the Court of the Magistrate is closed, or that on such a day the Magistrate is not required to consider the first application made by the police for further detention of the accused in custody. [Para 15
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ch XII, Ss. 167 (2) (a), 2 (h) and 173 (1) h no time limit has been prescribed to complete investigation -- magistrate has also on authority to direct police to produce challan within 90/60 days as the case may be -- Legislature has given no command to police officer to file charge-sheet against the accused. [Paras 16 to 18
(4) General Clauses Act, 1897 --S. 10 (1) -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 167 (2) - case under -- provisions under S. 10 (1) of General Clauses Act do not attract.
(5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 167 (2) (a). Proviso-- General Clauses Act, 1897 -- S. 10 (1) -- case under S. 167(2) of Cr. P.C. -- provisions under S. 10 (1) of General Clauses Act do not attract.
Section 10 (1) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is not attracted to the provisions of section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code because these provisions of the Code do not contain any prescribed period of Limik1tion for filing of charge-sheet by the police. 1983 JLJ 730, AIR 1986 SC 2130 and 1989 CAR 208 distinguished. 1985 Cr LJ 393 and 1986 C Cr LJ Note 47 dissented from. 1982 JLJ 697 and 1989 CAR 208 (SC) relied on. [Paras 29 to 33
¼1½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && ikB vkSj lanHkZ ij gh vkfJr gksuk pkfg, && ;g fuoZpu ds vk/kkj gSA , vkb vkj 1987 ,l lh 1023 vuqlfjrA
¿ iSjk 9À
¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 56] 57 rFkk 67 ¼1½ && fxj¶rkj fd;k x;k O;fDr && eftLVªsV ds U;k;ky; esa vxzsf"kr vFkok is‘k fd;k tkuk vko‘;d ugha gS && vfHk;qDr dks is‘k fd, tkus vFkok vxzsf"kr fd, tkus ls lacaf/kr mica/k esa vodk‘k esa fnu is‘k fd;k tkuk vFkok vxzsf"kr fd;k tkuk izfrf"k) ugha gSA
/kkjk 56 esa] fxj¶rkj fd, x, O;fDr dks eftLVªsV ds le{k ys tk;k tkuk vFkok Hkstuk lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fdarq vko‘;d :I ls eftLVªsV ds U;k;ky; esa ughaA /kkjk 57 rFkk /kkjk 167 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds la;qDr ikB esa vfHk;qDr dks fudVre eftLVªsV vkSj vf/kdkfjrk laiUu eftLVªsV dks vxzsf"kr djus dh ifjdYiuk gS] fdarq vko‘;d :i ls iz‘uxr eftLVªsV ds U;k;ky; esa ughaA blds vfrfjDr] /kkjk 57 vkSj /kkjk 167 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ eas ;g ugha dgk x;k gS fd fxj¶rkj fd, x, vfHk;qDr dks eftLVªsV ds le{k ml fnu is‘k ugha fd;k tk,xk ftl fnu eftLVªsV dk U;k;ky; can gks] vFkok ,sls fnu iqfyl }kjk vfHk;qDr dks vfHkj{kk esa vkSj fu#) j[kus ds fy, izFke vkosnu ij fopkj djus dh eftLVªsV ls vis{kk ugha dh tkrh gSA ¿ iSjk 15À
¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && v/;k; 12] /kkjk 167 ¼2½ ¼d½] ¼2½ ¼t½ rFkk 173 ¼1½ && vUos"k.k iwjk djus ds fy, dksbZ le;kof/k fofgr ugha dh xbZ gS && eftLVªsV dks Hkh ;FkkfLFkfr pkyku 90@60 fnu ds Hkhrj is‘k djus dk iqfyl dks funs‘k nsus dk izkf/kdkj ugha gS && fo/kku&eaMy us vfHk;qDr ds fo#) vkjksi&i= Qkby djus dk iqfyl vf/kdkjh dks dksbZ lekns‘k ughaa fn;k gSA ¿ iSjk 16 ls 18À
¼4½ lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] 1897 && /kkjk 10 ¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 167 ¼2½ ds v/khu ekeyk && lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] dh /kkjk 10¼1½ ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrsA
¼5½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 167 ¼2½ ¼d½ && iajrqd && lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] 1897 && /kkjk 10¼1½ && na-iz-la- dh /kkjk 167 ¼2½ ds v/khu ekeyk && lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10¼1½ ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrsA
naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 167¼2½ ds mica/kksa ls lk/kkj.k [kaM vf/kfu;e] 1897 dh /kkjk 10¼1½ ds mica/k vkdf"kZr ugha gksrs D;ksafd lafgrk ds bu mica/kksa esa iqfyl }kjk vkjksi&i= Qkby djus ds fy, ifjlhek dh dksbZ dkykof/k fofgr ugha dh xbZ gSA 1983 ts ,y ts 730] , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 2130 rFkk 1989 lh , vkj 208 izHksfnrA 1985 lhvkj ,y ts 393 rFkk 1986 lh lhvkj ,y ts uksV 47 folEerA 1982 ts ,y ts 697 rFkk 1989 lh , vkj 208 ¼mPpre U;k-½ voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 29 ls 33À
K.K. Verma, J. -- 1. The question of law in an application for hail (under section [439 (1) Cr. P.C.] filed by one of the three accused persons, first remanded by the Judicial Magistrate to judicial custody on 23 April 1991, is whether the charge-sheet having been filed on a Monday (22 July 1991), the day falling on 21 July 1991 (a Sunday) has to be included for determining the duration of the applicant's detention in judicial custody under the suh-c1ause (ii) of clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167, Cr. P.C., 1972, or whether the day falling on 21.7.91 (a Sunday) has to be excluded from consideration in accordance with the provisions of section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
2. I have heard at length the applicant's learned counsel, Shri J.P. Gupta, the learned panel lawyer for the State, Shri D.R. Sihara, and the complainant, learned counsel Shri K.K. Sharma, who have cited a number of reported decisions to back up their respective stands, as posited in the two clauses of the statement at paragraph 1 (Supra).
3. The provisions of sub-section (I) and (2) and clause (a) of the proviso below sub-section (2) of section 167 Cr. P.C., and those of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 10 of the General Clauses Act are being extracted and juxtaposed as follows:--
" 167. Procedure when investigation can- Computation of time not be completed in twenty-four hours. (1) Where, by any Central (1) Whenever any person is arrested and Act or Regulation made after the detained in custody, and it appears that the commencement of this Act, any investigation cannot be completed within the act or proceeding is directed or period of twenty-four hours fixed by section 57, allowed to be done or taken in and there are grounds for believing that the any Court or office on a certain accusation or information is well-founded, the day or within a prescribed period, officer in charge of the police station or the then, if the Court or office is police officer making the investigation, if he is dosed on that day or the last day not below the rank of sub-inspector, shall of the prescribed period, the act forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial or proceeding shall be con Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary side red as done or taken in due hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and time if it is done or taken on the shall at the same time forward the accused to next day afterwards on which the such Magistrate. Court or office is open:
`(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused Provided that nothing in this person is forwarded under this section may, section shall apply to any act or whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the proceeding to which the Indian case from time to time, authorise the detention Limitation Act, 1877, applies. of the accused in such custody as such (2) This section applies also Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding to all (Central Acts) Regulations fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no made on or after the fourteenth jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, day of January, 1887." and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:
Provided that (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, hut no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding.-
(i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;
(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence and on the expity of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may he, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
